-----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Clark Morris Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 2:39 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Another difference between platforms...
<snip> ... Blind pursuit of backward compatibility has left us stuck with CKD even while most of the major logical methods of storage are FBA (VSAM, DB2, and PDSE). <SNIP> Is it CKD vs. FBA? Or is this caused by it being cheaper to emulate CKD on RAID? And then, to continue with 3390 based geometry because it is cheaper to do that than to put out a new DASD device? IF FBA were such a wonderful thing, why hasn't some company that makes disk units (or did) put out FBA for "MVS" with their own device handler/driver? I'm just asking, because some of this was bandied about in the late '80s and into the '90s. Regards, Steve Thompson -- All opinions expressed by me are my own and may not necessarily reflect those of my employer. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
